Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: February 14 To February 20, 2022

CITATIONS  2022 LiveLaw (Del) 111 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 133

NOMINAL INDEX

Manika Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 111

AMIT @ SONU JAAT v. State and other connected matters. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 112

SAURABH AGGARWAL & ANR v. STATE & ANR.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 113

LUV SHARMA & ORS v. STATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 114

COMMONWEALTH HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 115

CHANDAN SINGH @CHINTU v. THE STATE AND ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 116

CHANDRAKANT JHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 117

TARANJEET SINGH v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 118

Sushil Ansal v. State 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 119

ASHISH GUPTA v. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 120

FIITJEE LIMITED v. VIDYA MANDIR CLASSES LTD. & ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 121

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD. & ORS.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 122

BW Business world Media Pvt. Ltd. v. India Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 123

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT v. GAGANDEEP SINGH & ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 124

Dharamraj v. Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 125

Satish Kansal v. Synergy Tradeco NV & Anr.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 126

H.S. Sahni v. Mukul Singhal & Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 127

JASVINDER KAUR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ORS.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 128

Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 129

TASLEEM & ORS v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) OF DELHI & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 130

Mohd. Suleman v. NDMC & Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 131

 Joginder Tuli v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 131

MD. EHRAZ ZAFAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.2022 LiveLaw (Del) 133

ROUND-UP 

1. Delhi High Court Appoints Justice Gita Mittal As Chairperson Of Committee Of Administrators To Run Table Tennis Federation Of India

Case Title: Manika Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 111

The Delhi High Court has appointed Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court as Chairperson of the Committee of Administrators to conduct the affairs of the Table Tennis Federation of India.

Justice Rekha Palli appointed a three member committee of administrators on Friday this week, thereby suspending the operation of it's Executive Committee after observing that prima facie, conduct of the federation was blameworthy.

"This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that till a deeper scrutiny of respondent no.1's affairs is carried out, either by the Union of India or by an independent Committee, a Committee of Administrators is required to be immediately appointed to conduct the affairs of the respondent no.1 federation," the Court said.

2. Rape One Of The Most Barbaric Crimes Against Woman's Holy Body & Soul Of Society: Delhi HC Upholds Conviction Of 3 Of 6 Accused In Gang Rape Case

Case Title: AMIT @ SONU JAAT v. State and other connected matters.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 112

Observing that rape is one of the most barbaric crimes committed against the holy body of a woman and soul of the society, Delhi High Court has upheld conviction and sentence of three accused persons in connection with a gang rape case. The Court, however, acquitted three other accused in the matter.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed thus:

"Rape is one of the most barbaric and heinous crimes that is committed not only against the dignity of the rape-victim but also against the society at large. Dignity of every citizen is one of the basic precepts of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution, since these provisions are the "fons juris" of our Constitution. These crimes are against the holy body of a woman and soul of the society."

The Court was of the view that the object of the relevant penal law is to protect women from such offences and to keep alive the conscience of the society by weeding out such criminal proclivity.

3. 'Filed Only To Arm Twist Accused': Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Alarming Increase In False Sexual Harassment Cases

Case Title: SAURABH AGGARWAL & ANR v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 113

The Delhi High Court has recently expressed concern over alarming increase in false sexual harassment, observing that the same are filed only to arm twist the accused and make them succumb to the demands of the complainant.

"This Court is pained to note that there is an alarming increase of cases under Section 354, 354A, 354B, 354C & 354D only to arm-twist the accused and make them succumb to the demands of the complainant," Justice Subramonium Prasad observed.

The Court also noted that the time spent by the police in investigating such false cases and in Court proceedings hinders them from spending time in investigation of serious offences.

"As a result cases which are required proper investigation get compromised and accused in those cases end up going scot-free due to the shoddy investigation. Valuable judicial time is also spent in hearing cases where false allegations are made and is consequently an abuse of the process of law," the Court said.

4. Pained To Note Increasing Tendency Of Filing Rape Complaints Against Male Members Of Husband's Family In Matrimonial Cases: Delhi HC

Case Title: LUV SHARMA & ORS v. STATE & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 114

The Delhi High Court has recently said that it is pained to note the increasing tendency of filing rape complaints in matrimonial cases against male members of the husband's family, just to exert pressure.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said:

"This Court is pained to note that in matrimonial cases, there is an increasing tendency of filing such complaints for an offence under Section 376 IPC against the father-in-law, brother-in-law or any other male member of the family of the husband just to exert pressure on the family of the husband."

5. Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea By Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Against Suspension Of FCRA Registration

Case Title: COMMONWEALTH HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 115

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) assailing an order which had suspended its registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 for 180 days under sec. 13 of the Act.

The impugned order dated June 7, 2021 was passed by Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Foreigners Division [FCRA Monitoring Unit], Ministry of Home Affairs whereby the FCRA registration was suspended, pending consideration for cancellation of the Certificate under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.

Justice V Kameswar Rao dismissed the petition by observing that the provisions for suspension of certificate under sec. 13 and cancellation of certificate under sec. 14 of the Act are measures in keeping with the general mandate of the Act and the rules.

6. "Can't Be Let Off Only Because Of Compromise, Has To Atone For Sin Of Harassing A Lady": Delhi High Court Directs Man To Do Community Service

Case Title: CHANDAN SINGH @CHINTU v. THE STATE AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 116

The Delhi High Court has directed a man, accused outraging modesty of a woman, to do community service for a month observing that he cannot be let off simply because of a compromise with the complainant and that he has to atone for his sin of harassing a lady.

Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the man to do community service at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for a period of one month from February 10 to March 11, 2022. The Court also directed the man to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000 with the "Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund" within three weeks.

7. Parole A Progressive Measure Of Correctional Services, Enables Convict To Re-Establish Social Ties, Motivates To Maintain Discipline: Delhi HC

Case Title: CHANDRAKANT JHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 117

The Delhi High Court has observed that the foundational concept of parole is to enable a convict to re-establish his social ties in the community and with his family, and reintegrate himself in the society.

Denying relief to a man convicted for the offence of murder in three cases, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the provision for parole, under Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, is seen as a positive reinforcement measure towards the convict.

Importantly, the Court observed thus:

"The foundational concept of parole is to enable a convict to, time and after, re-establish his social ties in the community and his family and reintegrate himself in the society. It enables him to maintain his social and familial obligations and responsibilities as well as maintain contact with the world outside the prison. Parole is usually a reward for good conduct during the time period of the serving of sentence by the convict."

8. Personal Liberty Can't Be Curtailed Merely Because Community Holds Sentiments Against Accused: Delhi High Court Grants Bail In Robbery Case

Case Title: TARANJEET SINGH v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 118

Observing that the right to bail is not to be denied merely because of sentiments of the community against the accused, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused in a robbery case.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh granted bail to one Taranjeet Singh seeking regular bail in an FIR registered under sec. 392 (robbery), 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of IPC.

"It is well settled law that personal liberty is very precious Fundamental Right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to peculiar facts and circumstances of the case," the Court said.

"It is also settled law that grant or denial is regulated to large extent by facts and circumstances of each particular case, but at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of sentiments of the community against the accused."

9. [Uphaar Fire] Suspending Sentence Of Ansal Brothers Would Amount To Eroding Faith Of Public In Judicial System: Delhi HC In Evidence Tampering Case

Case Title: Sushil Ansal v. State

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 119

The Delhi High Court has observed that suspending the seven year jail term awarded to real estate barons, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal in the evidence tampering case in Uphaar fire tragedy of 1997 would amount to eroding the faith of the public in the judicial system as it would entail allowing convicts to take advantage of the passage of time as well as the judiciary as an institution.

Justice Subramonium Prasad therefore dismissed Ansals' pleas seeking suspension of their seven-year jail term. The Court however allowed the petition filed by co convict Anoop Singh Karayat.

"This Court is of the opinion that suspending the sentence of the Petitioners would, therefore, amount to eroding the faith of the public in the judicial system as it would entail allowing convicts, whose finding of guilt has already been established, to take advantage of the passage of time as well as the judiciary as an institution," the Court said.

10. Suit For Mandatory Injunction For Restoration Of Electricity Dismissed On Ground Of Alternative Remedy, No Bar To File Petition U/A 226: Delhi HC

Case Title: ASHISH GUPTA v. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LIMITED

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 120

The Delhi High Court has observed that a civil suit filed by a party seeking mandatory injunction for restoration of electricity having been dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy will not debar such party from filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva reiterated that electricity is one the Fundamental Rights for existence and is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, subject to the party complying with other requirements.

The Court was dealing with a plea seeking directions on Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) to either restore the electricity supply or install a fresh connection in the property in question.

11. Malicious Falsehood Can't Become Freedom Of Speech, Care To Be Exercised To Avoid Denigration Of Competitor's Goodwill While Advertising: Delhi HC

Case Title: FIITJEE LIMITED v. VIDYA MANDIR CLASSES LTD. & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 121

Observing that malicious falsehood cannot become freedom of speech, the Delhi High Court has observed that care is to be exercised in order to avoid disparagement of another's products or denigration of the goodwill and reputation built by a competitor while engaging in advertising one's own products.

"While some latitude is to be given for hyperbole and commendatory expression for oneself with an attempt to show down the competitor, there can be no license to anyone to denigrate the competitor. The courts have protected parties who have been at the receiving end of such negative advertisements," Justice Asha Menon observed.

12. Order XLVII CPC | Error Which Is Not Self-Evident & Has To Be Detected By Reasoning Not 'Error Apparent' For Exercising Power Of Review: Delhi HC

Case Title: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 122

The Delhi High Court has observed that while seeking review of orders passed in a civil suit, the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure have to be satisfied.

Justice Asha Menon added that a re-hearing and re-appraisal of the material on record including pleadings, would fall within the scope of an appeal and not review.

"Error" has to be an error apparent on the face of the record to attract the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and must be a patent error which alone can be looked into in review proceedings," the Court said.

13. Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Does Not Constitute Waiver Of Right To Challenge Appointment Of Ineligible Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

Case No: OMP (T) (Comm.) 3/2020

BW Businessworld Media Pvt. Ltd. v. India Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 123

The Delhi High Court recently terminated the mandate of a sole arbitrator appointed unilaterally at the instance of one of the contracting parties.

Justice Vikram Bakhru held that the mere fact that the petitioner did not object to the appointment at the material time and participated in the arbitral proceedings, would not stand in the way of terminating the mandate of such an arbitrator, for the reason that the appointment was made by a person ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.

14. PMLA | Offence Of Money Laundering Layered, Includes Stages Preceding & Succeeding The Offence But Mere Suspicion Not Prima Facie Proof: Delhi HC

Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORECEMENT v. GAGANDEEP SINGH & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 124

The Delhi High Court has held that the offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is layered and multi-fold which includes the stages preceding and succeeding the offence.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh added that the PMLA is a special enactment to combat the menace of money laundering, keeping in view the illegal practices that have been surfacing with respect to transfer and use of tainted money and subsequent acquisition of properties by using the same. 

15. Reassessment Notice U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act Issued Against A Dead Person Is Null & Void: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Dharamraj v. Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 125

The Delhi High Court recently held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1861 against a dead person is null and void.

A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Manmohan relied on the case of Savita Kapila v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to answer the question of the validity of notice and consequent proceedings against a dead person. In the said case, it was held that,

"The sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that notice under section 148 should be issued to a correct person and not to a dead person."

16. Breach Of Main Contract Not Ground For Injuncting Payments Under Bank Guarantees/ Letters Of Credit: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Satish Kansal v. Synergy Tradeco NV & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 126

The Delhi High Court recently held that contracts in respect of Bank Gaurantees and Letters of Credit are independent of the main contract between the parties. Thus, even if there is a breach of the main contract, that cannot be a ground for injuncting payments under the Bank Gaurantees/ LCs.

Justice Amit Bansal observed,

" Merely because there is a dispute between the buyer and the seller with regard to the contract of supply of goods, that cannot be ground for interfering with the LC."

It added that there are only two exceptions to the aforesaid principle where courts would pass an injunction in respect of payments under an LC, in cases of 'egregious fraud and 'irretrievable injustice'. Egregious fraud has to be a fraud of the kind which goes to the very root of the matter, it clarified.

17. S. 21 CPC | Subsequent Suit Seeking Further Reliefs Has To Be Stayed If There Is 'Identity Of Matter' In Previous Litigation: Delhi High Court

Case Title: H.S. Sahni v. Mukul Singhal & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 127

The Delhi High Court recently delved into an issue relating to staying of subsequent suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 where there is identity of matter with previous litigation.

Section 10 CPC stipulates that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, in the same or any other Court in India.

Justice Asha Menon remarked that the fundamental test that is to be applied to determine whether Section 10 was applicable or not, is to see whether, on the final decision being reached in the first suit, such decision would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit. 

18. What Are Detaining Authority's Obligations While Communicating Grounds Of Preventive Detention To Detenu? Delhi High Court Answers

Case Title: JASVINDER KAUR v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 128

The Delhi High Court on Friday laid down the legal position regarding the detaining authority's obligation to communicate to a detenu the grounds of detention.

A division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup J Bhambhani observed that a detenu has a fundamental right under Article 22(5) that the grounds on which a detention order has been made against him, be communicated to him as soon as may be; and that he be afforded an opportunity of making a representation against the detention order at the earliest.

19. "Misconceived, Half Baked Petition": Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging DMRC-DAMEPL Agreement

Case Title: Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 129

Calling it a misconceived and half baked petition, the Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea challenging an agreement between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Anil Ambani-led Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) in the year 2008.

The plea alleged that the agreement was executed by playing a fraud on public money.

Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla was hearing a plea filed by Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma challenging the agreement dated August 25, 2008 entered between the parties, alleging that the same was hit by fraud, was contrary to public policy and was promoted by the parties jointly to siphon public money.

20. High Court Pulls Up Delhi Police Over Non Appearance Of IOs, Says Criminal Justice Machinery Can't Be Left At Mercy Of Such Officials

Case Title: TASLEEM & ORS v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT) OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 130

The Delhi High Court recently pulled up the city Police over non-appearance of it's investigating officers before the Court in criminal matters.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh termed the delinquency on the part of Police Department officers as most unfortunate, adding that the same must be strictly dealt with.

"It is observed by this Court that even in other cases as well the concerned Investigating Officer in those cases are avoiding appearance before the Court. The criminal justice machinery cannot be left at the mercy of the department and its officials where due to their negligence, cases are kept at abeyance and the entire machinery comes to a standstill," the Court said.

21. Repeated Representation Doesn't Extend Limitation Nor Can Be Ground To Plead Fresh Cause Of Action To Overcome Delay & Laches: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mohd. Suleman v. NDMC & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 131

The Delhi High Court reiterated that it is a settled law that repeated representation does not extend limitation nor can be a ground to plead a fresh cause of action to overcome delay and laches.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice of D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed an appeal filed with a delay of 46 years from the date the shop in question was demolished and over 11 years from the rejection of representation, without an iota of explanation.

It observed,

" The shop in question was admittedly demolished in the year 1975 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2021, which is after a period of over 46 years. There is no explanation forthcoming in the writ petition or before this Court as to why the Appellant waited for nearly 5 decades to approach the Court. "

22. Section 53A Transfer of Property Act - Unregistered Document Can't Be Relied To Protect Possession : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Joginder Tuli v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 132

The Delhi High Court held that to give benefits of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act; the document relied upon must be a registered document. Justice Sabronium Prasad noted that.

"Any unregistered document cannot be looked into by the court and cannot be relied upon on or taken into evidence in view of Section 17(1A) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act."

23. Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Tender Invitations Issued By PSUs For Empanelment Of Law Firms Based On Turn Over Criteria

Case Title: MD. EHRAZ ZAFAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 133

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Tender invitations issued by Public Sector Undertakings and other registered Corporates or Companies, including Directorate General of Hydrocarbons, for empanelment of a Law Firm on the basis of money or turn-over criteria as being ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961.

Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla dismissed the petition filed by Advocate Md. Ehraz Zafar which sought a direction on the Centre to formulate a new uniform guideline for engagement and empanelment of lawyers and advocates.

IMPORTANT WEEKLY UPDATES

1. Sci-Hub Case: Delhi High Court Rejects Researchers' Plea Seeking Impleadment In Infringement Proceedings

The Delhi High Court has rejected an application filed by three researchers seeking impleadment in the ongoing infringement proceedings in the Sci Hub case.

Justice C Hari Shankar rejected the impleadment application filed by Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam, Prof. (Dr.) Padmanabhan Balaram and Mr. Madhan Muthu claiming to be eminent researchers and scientists holding various coveted academic positions at some of the most prestigious universities in India.

The impleadment was sought in the suit filed by publishing houses Elsevier Ltd, Wiley India Pvt Ltd, and American Chemical Society against online repositories Sci-Hub and Libgen(another online repository of science articles) over alleged copyright infringement. 

2. Delhi High Court Restrains Historian Audrey Truschke & Others From Publishing Defamatory Material Against Vikram Sampath

The Delhi High Court this week restrained historian Dr. Audrey Truschke and other persons from publishing any defamatory material against historian Dr. Vikram Sampath against him till April 1 on Twitter as well as other online or offline platforms.

Passing an ad interim order, Justice Amit Bansal also restrained the defendants from publishing the letter dated February 11 addressed to Royal Historical Society in London raising serious allegations of plagiarism against Sampath, till the next date of hearing.

3. "Attitude Of Union Of India Has Been Lackadaisical": Delhi High Court Grants Last Opportunity For Filing Reply, Imposes Rs. 50K Cost

Noting that the attitude of the Union of India has been lackadaisical resulting in unnecessary adjournments in a case raising 'serious allegations' against Government Officers, the Delhi High Court has granted last and final opportunity to the Centre for filing it's reply subject to a cost of Rs. 50,000.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a plea which sought directions on the CBI and other authorities to conduct a proper and fair investigation by an officer not below the rank of Superintending of Police in the matter allegedly exposing the scandal of nexus among the accused persons and other officials regarding allegations of corruption.

4. AgustaWestland VVIP Chopper Scam: Delhi High Court Reserves Order On Middleman Christian Michel's Bail Pleas

The Delhi High Court has reserved order on the bail applications filed by Christian James Michel, facing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with Augusta Westland case.

The bail pleas were moved in July last year. Justice Manoj Ohri secured the order today after hearing Advocate Aljo K Joseph for Michel, Advocate DP Singh for CBI and ASG SV Raju for the ED.